Wikipedia:Peer review/Menominee Tribe v. United States/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get it ready for FAC. It was going through an FAC previously (September 2010), but I had to leave Wikipedia for a while and only recently returned. I'm wanting to get back to working on the article again and make progress.
Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 02:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'll do this one. --02:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Doing...
- Comments from Noleander.
- Lead should be clearer: "by the Menominee Termination Act ..." - Use plain english: instead say something like "after the tribe was abolished" or similar.
- Date? - "in the states of Wisconsin and Michigan for at least 10,000 years." - Probably should be double-checked. Most recent research is that Native Americans only crossed from Siberia to Alaska 14,000 years ago.
Done - added ref and footnote supporting statement. GregJackP Boomer! 20:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Units - "600,000 acres (2,400 km2) " - If using "acres" for English units, probably should use hectares for metric.
- Wordign - "the tribe was part of a survey to identify tribes ..." - More accurate to say "the tribe was subject to a survey .." or "was considered by a government-run survey.."; as is, it reads like the tribe was helping to run the survey.
- Explain: - "The tribe and the state of Wisconsin successfully lobbied to delay the termination to 1961". Why?
- Done - Expanded and explained. GregJackP Boomer! 01:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wording: " the Menominee went from being one of the wealthiest...." - Use of "went" is too slangy. Try "became" or similar.
- Slang: "In 1954, the tribe was paying its own way ..." - "paying its own way" is not encyclopedic. Rewrite as "was financially self-sufficient" or similar.
- Clarify: "Joseph L. Sanapaw, William J. Grignon, and Francis Basina ..." - Should state that they are tribal members right there.
- Confusing: "the court found that it must be resolved in favor of the tribe. Since the tribe had hunting and fishing rights under the treaty, the court then looked to determine if Congress had removed that right by enacting the Menominee Termination Act. The court held that Congress had used its plenary power to abrogate those rights..." - This seems to say two contradictory things: (1) they tribe did retain hunting rights; then (2) They did not. Clarify the wording.
- Done - I tried to clarify it. The court first determined if the tribe had hunting and fishing rights, then after it determined that the rights did exist, it found that the Termination Act had withdrawn those rights. GregJackP Boomer! 20:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Informal: "The key point to the court was the phrase ..." - Rewords to something like "The court placed special emphasis on ..."
- Ambiguity: " The court held that the tribe ..." - Throughout the "State enforcement actions" and later, avoid using "the court" because there are 4 courts here: lower court; state supreme; court of claims, and SCOTUS. Always use a modifier to tell the reader which court.
- Clarify: "granted certiorari (a writ to the lower court to send the case to them for review)..." - Readers would probably benefit if this simply said "decided to hear an the appeal" or similar.
- Done - left the statement in, but clarified by adding simple language prior to the certiorari statement. GregJackP Boomer! 11:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Informal: "In an interesting twist, both the ..." - Not encyclopedic. Try "Contrary to most appeals, both ... ", although that doesnt seem right either.
- Clarify: "The decision of the U.S. Court of Claims was affirmed." - I've lost track of what affirmed means here: Restate in this sentence what that means to the tribe.
- Plainer wording: "The case has been identified as one of the ..." - Just say "The case is a landmark case in tribal law ... " or similar.
- Informal: "A good number of these articles..." - "good number" is not encyclopedic. The whole sentence should probably be reworded to make it go away.
- Footnotes: Some end in periods, some don't. Be consistent.
- Reword: "From that date forward for 100 years, this area has been the home of the tribe, and they were free from state interference." - "from that date forward" is too informal. Also "and they were free from ..." is a bit vague: do the sources really say that? Be more specific.
- Done Corrected wording, added footnote with ref to explain tribal sovereignty. GregJackP Boomer! 02:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Footnote #3 has some formatting problem at the end.
- That should be enough for now. It looks like you have not edited the article for nearly two years. I recommend that you go through the article sentence-by-sentence and consider if each can be improved. The notes above should give you some indication of the kinds of improvements that are available.
End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks - I appreciate the review and will work on correcting these areas. GregJackP Boomer! 12:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think that I've addressed all of your comments - please let me know if there is anything I missed. I am starting to go through it line by line per your suggestion, and I really appreciate all of your help. GregJackP Boomer! 02:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)